Denmark Pushes Sanctions on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich: Is Europe Finally Moving Against Israel’s Far Right?
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen says Copenhagen still wants EU action against Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and settlement exports — even if Europe lacks a majority for now.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has said Denmark continues to support EU sanctions against Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, as well as action against exports from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. He also acknowledged the political reality: Europe does not yet have the majority needed to move decisively.
That tension captures the state of European policy on Israel. The rhetoric is hardening. The consensus is not there.
Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have become the two names most often cited by European governments seeking targeted measures against Israel’s far right. Ben-Gvir represents the security-nationalist wing of Israeli politics: policing, hardline Palestinian policy, prisoner conditions, armed civilian mobilization and provocations around sacred sites. Smotrich represents the settlement-sovereignty project: finance, civil administration, West Bank policy and opposition to Palestinian statehood.
For critics in Europe, the issue is no longer only Gaza or Lebanon. It is the future of the West Bank. Settlement expansion, settler violence, annexation rhetoric and the erosion of Palestinian territorial continuity have pushed several governments to ask whether Europe can continue trading normally while condemning the very policies that trade may indirectly sustain.
Denmark’s position is important because it is not traditionally seen as the most radical voice in Europe. When Ireland, Spain or Belgium criticize Israel, supporters of Israel often dismiss them as predictable. Denmark carries a different weight: Atlanticist, NATO-aligned, pragmatic and usually cautious. If Copenhagen is pushing sanctions, something in the center of European politics is shifting.
But the EU requires consensus on many foreign-policy measures, and that remains the obstacle. Hungary and other Israel-friendly governments have often blocked harder EU action. Germany remains deeply cautious because of Holocaust memory, strategic responsibility and domestic political sensitivities. Some Eastern European states see Israel as a security partner. Others fear that sanctioning ministers could damage relations with Washington.
The result is a strange European posture: strong statements, limited enforcement. Ministers condemn settlement violence, call for international law, support a two-state solution, and then fail to agree on tools.
Targeted sanctions would change that. They could include travel bans, asset freezes or restrictions on doing business with sanctioned individuals. Settlement-export measures would go further by targeting the economic infrastructure of occupation. That would be legally and politically more complex, but also more meaningful.
Israel’s defenders argue that sanctioning elected ministers of a democratic ally is outrageous, especially during a time of war. They say Europe is ignoring Israeli security threats from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran while rewarding Palestinian rejectionism. They also warn that sanctions would embolden extremist actors by showing that violence against Israel produces diplomatic pressure on Israel.
Critics respond that democracy does not grant immunity for policies that violate international law. They argue that Europe’s credibility collapses if it sanctions Russia for occupation while avoiding serious action on Israeli settlements. They also say targeted sanctions are not anti-Israel; they are a way to distinguish between Israel as a state and ministers driving radical policy.
The Danish statement also intersects with Ben-Gvir’s reported U.S. visa trouble. If Western governments cannot agree on formal sanctions, travel friction may become the softer substitute: invitations disappear, visas slow down, diplomatic access narrows.
The headline says Denmark wants sanctions on Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. The deeper story is that Europe is testing whether it can move from moral discomfort to policy.
For now, Rasmussen admits there is no majority. But momentum matters. In EU diplomacy, today’s minority position can become tomorrow’s compromise, especially when images from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank keep forcing the issue back onto ministers’ desks.